TURNER v. STATE (2020)

Order

Tamara Turner appeals from the denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Turner argues that the motion court erred in denying her motion without an evidentiary hearing insofar as her post-conviction motion pled facts that were not refuted by the record and, if true, would entitle her to relief. Her first point argues that she adequately pled a claim that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise her of a viable defense to the charge of tampering with physical evidence, and she should have been granted an evidentiary hearing on this claim. Her second point argues that she adequately pled a claim that sentencing counsel was ineffective for failing to call mitigation witnesses at the sentencing hearing, and she should have been granted an evidentiary hearing on this claim. Her third point argues, in the alternative to her second point, that the motion court erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on her claim that sentencing counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigation witnesses at the sentencing hearing, and, therefore, we must remand the matter to the motion court to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Per Curiam: